SharonsVideo Bar

Loading...

Wednesday, February 8, 2017








Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

Yesterday, we called for the impeachment of Federal District Judge James L. Robart, who on February 3, 2017 issued a temporary restraining order barring the federal executive branch from implementing President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily barring travel from seven terrorist hotspots.
It wasn’t long before other conservatives made the case for the impeachment of Judge Robart. 
Impeach RobartOur friend Daniel Horowitz writing for Conservative Review argued that Congress rightfully delegated restrictionist authority to the president under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the clearest terms imaginable.  
And said Horowitz, that should end the discussion. 
Moreover, almost each component of the immigration order is double covered by another statute. Under existing law unanimously passed by Congress (8 U.S. Code § 1735), any foreign national from state sponsors of terror (at the time of the original law in 2002, that included five of the seven countries on Trump’s list) are not to be granted visas forever (not just for 90 days, as Trump has proposed). 
But here’s the real key to why we think Judge Robart should be impeached – President George W. Bush and Obama utilized waiver authority to bring in these people; Trump merely reinstated the base statute
Plus, Trump added Somalia and Yemen, which are even worse than state sponsors of terror; they are failed terror state safe havens with absolutely no data on immigrants. It would be a violation of the social compact for a president to allow immigration from those countries. 
Trump has the statutory authority to do what he did. Period.  
And Judge Robart had nothing but personal whim to justify his arbitrary and capricious ruling restraining the President’s Executive Order. 
In addition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution and unanimous case law since our Founding gives Congress plenary power over immigration and the authority to delegate power to the executive specifically to ratchet down (again, not up) immigration, the president also has war powers to shut off immigration noted Horowitz. 
We have been engaged in conflict in Somalia, Yemen, and many of these countries and have ongoing military operations in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. In fact, throughout our history, we have never admitted immigrants in such large quantities from nations that were the subject of ongoing wars. Yet judges are mandating we take them in! 
Yes, the entire premise of refugee resettlement is a religious test 
As for refugees, the president was specifically given the power to set the cap and criteria for who is let in as a refugee (more so than any other area of immigration) under 8 U.S.C. 1157. The notion that a president can’t place a moratorium on refugees (in this case, from any country, not just Muslim-majority ones) until we have a better vetting system in place, defies comprehension. 
Most egregiously, Judge James Robart — who should be impeached says Daniel Horowitz — said that Trump’s prioritization of persecuted religious minorities is unconstitutional, even though it is literally required by current law and the entire spirit of refugee status in the first place.  
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion
In addition to Daniel Horowitz’s review of Judge Robart’s intentional ignorance and statutory errors, our friend attorney Ken Klukowski posted a lengthy analysis of what he called a ruling that “showcases a cavalcade of legal errors.” 
Klukowski is director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, a fellow and senior analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, and a research fellow with Liberty University School of Law and has written briefs on constitutional issues in federal courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court. 
For starters, says Klukowski, Judge Robart did not have jurisdiction to rule on at least several of the ten counts in the lawsuit. 
The judicial power is defined by Article III of the Constitution, which Klukowski points out, requires that a plaintiff must have standing for a federal court to have power to rule on the merits of a lawsuit. A party has standing if it has suffered a concrete particularized injury that is traceable to the defendants and can be redressed by a favorable court ruling. 
But as the Supreme Court has made clear, a plaintiff must prove that it has standing for each issue raised in the lawsuit. It is possible—not definite, but possible—that the states are correct in asserting that their Tenth Amendment prerogatives and sovereigns are being violated by the federal government. 
However, concluded Klukowski, the states unquestionably lack standing to bring some of the issues in this kitchen-sink lawsuit.  
Washington and Minnesota claim violations of the Establishment Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), for example. Those rights can only be raised by natural persons or by corporate organizations. A state has no rights under that constitutional provision or federal statute, so cannot sue over alleged violations. And despite what Robart said, a state cannot assert the personal rights of its citizens concluded Klukowski. 
But it gets worse says Ken Klukowski. 
The Supreme Court has reiterated countless times that when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction in a lawsuit, the only power the court has is to explain why it cannot claim jurisdiction, then dismiss the case. 
That’s what should have happened for many of the claims in this lawsuit, rather than taking the extreme step of issuing a TRO. 
Which leads to another problem with the TRO: Rule 65(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to “describe the injury” suffered by the plaintiff. Robart claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their lawsuit, but never says which ones.  
The states obviously cannot succeed on a claim they have no standing to raise in the first place notes Klukowski and what’s more, Robart failed to provide the legal reasoning for his decision. 
Next, court injunctions should never be broader than necessary to remedy the injury suffered by the plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs are two states out of 50. Robart offers no explanation why blocking this EO in all 50 states from coast to coast is necessary to take care of Washington and Minnesota concluded Ken Klukowski. 
While Ken Klukowski stops short of calling for the impeachment of Judge Robart, his article adds a number of additional points to what we think should be a strong bill of impeachment of Judge James L. Robart for issuing an order ultra vires – acting beyond his jurisdiction.
Share this

Where do I SIGN

Where Can I Sign to have him removed from office and all other liberal RINOS appointed by the Bushes?

Close the Federal District Court

Congress also has the power to create and abolish courts, districts, and circuits, under the Constitution. It should move quickly to abolish the district where Robart serves.
NEWS
Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard ... Yesterday, we called for the impeachment of Federal District Judge James L. Robart, .... Robart claimed that Washington and Minnesota had carried their burden of showing ...
https://www.google.com/alerts/share?hl=en&gl=US&ru=http://www.conservativehq.com/article/25044-conservatives-build-case-impeach-judge-robard&ss=gp&rt=Conservatives+Build+Case+To+Impeach+Judge+Robard&cd=KhM3NzI3Nzg1Nzk4NTA1OTcwMzMxMhoyNzg5NzY5MjNiY2NlYjYxOmNvbTplbjpVUw&ssp=AMJHsmWM7IpSJQ8N0R5gvVFB7KsSjqX5cg https://www.google.com/alerts/share?hl=en&gl=US&ru=http://www.conservativehq.com/article/25044-conservatives-build-case-impeach-judge-robard&ss=fb&rt=Conservatives+Build+Case+To+Impeach+Judge+Robard&cd=KhM3NzI3Nzg1Nzk4NTA1OTcwMzMxMhoyNzg5NzY5MjNiY2NlYjYxOmNvbTplbjpVUw&ssp=AMJHsmWM7IpSJQ8N0R5gvVFB7KsSjqX5cg https://www.google.com/alerts/share?hl=en&gl=US&ru=http://www.conservativehq.com/article/25044-conservatives-build-case-impeach-judge-robard&ss=tw&rt=Conservatives+Build+Case+To+Impeach+Judge+Robard&cd=KhM3NzI3Nzg1Nzk4NTA1OTcwMzMxMhoyNzg5NzY5MjNiY2NlYjYxOmNvbTplbjpVUw&ssp=AMJHsmWM7IpSJQ8N0R5gvVFB7KsSjqX5cg Flag as

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Dr.Richard.CorderoFederalLifeTimeJudges2016

NOTE:  If  in  spite  of  all  the  effort to  circumvent  the  ‘glitch’  in  word  processing or  emailing  software that  creates  “joinedwords”  in  my  emails(>ol2:426§C),  this  email  has  them,  kindly  overlook them  and  let  me  know  at  DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.organd  Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net.

Federal  judges  with  life-tenure  are 
the  Establishment  by  definition
Will  President-elect  Trump 
drain  the  judicial swamp
or
let  it fester
on  the  advice  of  the  Establishment  insiders that
he  is bringing  into  the  White  House  and  his  cabinet  and
to  avoid judges’  retaliation  against
his  70 pending  business  lawsuits,
thus  leaving  exposed to  judges’  continued abuse
The  Dissatisfied  With  The  Establishment and 
the  rest of  We  the  People?


Dr.  Richard Cordero,  Esq.Ph.D., University  of  Cambridge, England
M.B.A.,  University  of  Michigan  Business School
D.E.A.,  La  Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial  Discipline  Reform
New  York City 
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

1.  President-elect  Trump  has  stated that  what  follows in  importance  a  president’s  declaration of  war  is  a  Supreme Court  nomination. 

2.  Indeed,  until  the  Court  upholds  the  constitutionality  of  a  law,  it  is  little  more  than  a  set  of  wishful  guidelines envisaged  by  the  535  members of  Congress  and  the  president and  expressed  in  black  ink  on  white  paper.  Where  would  Obamacare be  today  if  the  Court  had  held  it  unconstitutional?  In  a  footnote in  the  chronicles of  the  Obama  presidency.

3.  P-e  Trump  also  campaigned on  the  promise “to  drain  the  swamp  of  corruption of  Washington  insiders”.  The  latter  constitute the  Establishment.  He  accused  Sec.  Clinton  of  being  its  representative  so  that  if  she  won  the  presidential election,  she  would  protect  the  swamp  and  its  corruption would  continue  festering. 

4.  It  stills  festers  although in  2006,  Democratic Representative  Nancy  Pelosi, before  becoming  Speaker of  the  House, famously  declared  that  “Washington  is  dominated  by  the  culture of  corruption”  and  vowed  “to  drain  the  swamp”(*>jur:23fn16).  She  miserably failed  to  do  so  because she  was  part  of  the  Establishment.

5.  By  contrast, P-e  Trump  is  an  outsider. He  is  not  tied,  and  does  not  owe  his  election,  to  Establishment  members. Far  from  it,  those who got  him  elected are  precisely  The  Dissatisfied  With  The  Establishment. 

6.  However,  in  light  of  his  nomination of  Washington  insiders for  his  White  House  and  cabinet,  how  concerned  should The  Dissatisfied  be  about  his  becoming  domesticated on  those  insiders’ advice  to  the  Washington  ways  so  as  to  become used  to  the  continued  festering of  the  swamp, in  general,  and  its  most  harmful  portion, the  judicial  swamp, in  particular?

A.  The  abused powers  that  generate the  judicial  swamp


“Power  corrupts,  and  absolute  power  corrupts  absolutely”. Lord  Acton,  Letter to  Bishop  Mandell Creighton,  April  3,  1887.

7.  The  status of  unaccountability  is  at  the  source  of  the  capacity to  turn  power  into  absolute power  that  ends  up  forming a  swamp  of  corruption.

1.  Judges’  power  to  stay  established:  life-appointment  and  irremovability  in  practice


8.  Federal  judges are  appointed  for  life.  Worse  yet,  they  are  irremovable in  effect:  While  2,293  federal judges  were  in  office  on  30sep15,  in  the  last  227  years  since  the  creation  of  the  Federal Judiciary  in  1789,  the  number of  them  impeached and  removed  is  8!(*>jur:21§1). 

The  above  statistics originate  in  the  official  ones  that  the  Federal  Judiciary must  submit  by  law(28  USC  §604(d)(3); (h)(2)*>jur:26fn23a)  ,  to  Congress every  year.  They  are  analyzed  in my  study  of  judges’  performance in  practice  as  opposed  to  as  prescribed on  rules  printed on  paper.  It  is  titled and  downloadable  thus:

Exposing  Judges’  Unaccountability  and 
Consequent  Riskless  Wrongdoing:
  Pioneering  the  news  and  publishing  field  of 
judicial  unaccountability  reporting
.
  *

*  Vol. 1:  http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf  >all  prefixes:page#  up  to  ol:393


All  the  materials  corresponding to  the  (blue  text  references)  herein  are  found  in  that  study.

9.  Several  justices have  been  on  the  Supreme Court  for  around 25  years,  such  as  JJ.  Thomas  (29),  Kennedy  (28),  Ginsburg  (23),  and  Breyer (22).  J.  Scalia was  in  office for  30  years. That  does  not  count  at  all  the  years  that  they  spent  in  the  circuit  and  district  courts. 

10.  For  instance, while  J.  Sotomayor has  been  on  the  Supreme Court  only  since  2009,  she  has  been  in  the  Federal  Judiciary since  1992,  when  she  was  appointed  a  federal  district court,  followed  by  her  appointment in  1998  to  the  Court  of  Appeals for  the  Second Circuit.  Hence,  she  has  already been  in  the  judicial  Establishment for  24  years.

11.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Federal  Judiciary is  the  quintessential  Establishment.  Its  judges  are  established  in  power  forever no  matter  the  quality  or  quantity  of  their  performance or  conduct.

2.  The  power  of  connivance between  appointing-politicians  and  their  appointed judges


12.  Federal  judges are  recommended,  endorsed, nominated,  and  confirmed by  politicians.  For  the  latter, judges  are  “our  men  and  women  on  the  bench”.  They  stand  in  an  appointer-appointee  relation(ol2:488¶¶3-6). 

13.  Politicians  hold  judges  unaccountable in  the  expectation that  they  will  hold  the  laws  of  their  legislative agenda  constitutional(jur:23fn17a)  and  not  retaliate(Lsch:17§C)  against  the  thousands  of  lawsuits  that  the  government files  every  year. 

14.  The  relation  of  power  between these  branches  is  out  of  balance,  but  only  due  to  pragmatic considerations,  not  because the  Constitution  holds  the  Judiciary superior  to  the  other  branches. Far  from  it.  Nevertheless,  the  result  is  that  judges neither  fear  nor  respect  politicians.

3.  Judges’  vast  power  of  the  office


15.  Judges  act  as  a  standing  constitutional  convention, for  they  give  content  to  the  mere  labels  of  the  Constitution(jur:22fn12b),  such  as  “freedom  of  speech,  freedom of  the  press”,  “due  process”,  “equal  protection of  the  law”. They  even  read  into  it  new rights never  imagined  hundreds of  years  ago  by  a  rural,  religious, and  mostly  illiterate society  and  even  diametrically  opposite to  its  beliefs.

16.  Judges  interpret the  meaning  and  scope  of  application  of  every  law.  By  exercising that  power  in  its  many  forms(ol:267§4),  they  dispose  of  the  property, liberty,  life,  and  all  the  rights  and  duties  that  shape  what  people  can  and  cannot do  from  before their  birth,  throughout their  lives,  and  after  their  death(jur:25fn25,  26).

17.  Judges  abuse  their  power  by  the  way  they  make  decisions: The  analysis  of  their  official statistics  shows  that  the  12  federal  regional circuit  courts  dispose of  93%  of  appeals  in  decisions  “on  procedural grounds,  by  consolidation,  unpublished, unsigned,  without  comment”.  They  are  so  perfunctory  that  the  majority of  them  are  issued  on  a  5¢  summary  order  form  and/or marked  “not  precedential”(ol2:453),  mere ad hoc,  arbitrary,  reasonless fiats  of  the  judicial  swamp.

18.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  individually and  collectively  judges wield  the  broadest, farthest-reach-ing,  and  most  substantial  power  of  any  public  officer, including  the  most  corruptive:  the  power  'to  tell  what  is  good  and  evil'  in  the  contemplation  of  the  law,  that  is,  what  is  legal  and  illegal.

4.  Judges’  power  to  grab  benefits 


19.  Judges abuse  their  power  to  grab  the  social, material,  and  personal benefits  within  their  reach(ol:173¶93)  and  for  sheer  convenience. 

20.  The  opportunity  to  use  power  to  grab  can  hardly be  passed  up  under  the  influence  of  the  most  insidious  corruptor: money!,  lots  of  money! In  the  calendar year  2010,  the  bankruptcy  judges alone  ruled  on  the  $373  billion  at  stake  in  only  personal bankruptcies(jur:27§2).  The  only  ones  watching  with  power  to  do  anything about  its  disposition were  the  circuit judges  who  had  appointed  them  and  they  and  the  district  judges who  could  remove them(jur:43fn61a).  With  them  as  their  overseers, bankruptcy  judges  could  do  just  about  anything, except  being  too  greedy  and  ungrateful. 

21.  In  addition,  there  is  all  the  money  subject  to  judges’  decisions in  probate  matters, contracts,  alimony,  mergers &  acquisition,  taxes, product  liability,  initial public  offers,  etc.

5.  Judges’  power  of  growing well-connected


22.  The  arguments that  militate  in  support  of  the  two-term limit  for  holding the  presidency,  and  of  P-e  Trump’s  promise to  push  for  legislation  limiting the  number  of  terms  for  members  of  Congress  apply  to  judges too:  The  longer a  person  serves in  public  office, the  more  entitled they  feel  and  the  more  their  public office  becomes  their  personal  one. 

23.  That  feeling of  entitlement  is  exacerbated  for  federal  judges, who  do  not  have  to  run  for  reelection  and  need  not  fear  in  reality  being  removed.  They  and  their  public  office become  one  and  the  same.

24.  Moreover,  as  public  officers deal  with  ever  more  people, they  become  ever  more  powerful through  the  IOUs  that  they  have  collected from  people  who  needed  their  help;  and  the  more  indebted  they  become  to  others  whose  help  they  needed  to  get  their  way.  Hence, to  an  ever  greater  extent they  move  from  doing  the  public’s  business to  ‘dealing  for  their  own  account’. 

6.  Judges’  power  of  camaraderie 


25.  To  be  in  good  standing  with  the  other  judges,  a  judge  only  needs  to  engage  in  knowing  indifference and  willful  ignorance or  blindness,  which  are  forms  of  culpably looking  the  other  way(jur:88§§a-c)  and  carrying on  as  if  nothing  had  happened  or  will  happen. 

‘Keep  your  mouth  shut  about  what  I  and  the  other  judges did  or  are  about  to  do,  and  you  can  enjoy  our  friendship.’

‘I  will  protect you  today  against this  complaint  and  tomorrow  you  will  protect me  or  my  friends  when  we  are  the  target of  a  complaint’.

26.  That  is  how  judges implicitly  or  explicitly ensure  for  decades their  social  acceptance and  their  self-preservation  through reciprocal  protection.  They  know  from  the  historical record  that  nobody will  charge  them  with  accessorial liability  after  the  fact  that  they  kept  quiet  about  or  covered up,  and  before the  fact  of  the  next  wrongful  act  that  they  encouraged  others to  do  with  their  promise of  passive  silence or  active  cover-up.

27.  By  contrast, a  judge  who  dared  expose another  judge’s  wrongdoing would  be  deemed by  all  the  other  judges an  unreliable  traitor and  cast  out  their  social circle  and  activities as  a  pariah. 

28.  Such  interdependent  security(Lsch:16§1)  gives  rise  to  the  judicial  class  mentality.  It  is  similar to  that  found  among  police officers,  doctors,  priests, sports  teams,  sororities and  fraternities,  etc.  It  trades integrity  for  the  benefits  of  membership.

29.  The  more  time  judges spend  in  the  Judiciary,  the  more  they  transition  from  peers  to  colleagues,  to  members,  to  friends,  and  to  co-conspirators(ol:166§§C,  D). So  instead  of  administering  justice to  We  the  People, they  run  their  swamp  as  a  private  enterprise to  make  it  ever  more  profitable,  efficient, and  secure  for  themselves.

7.  Judges’  power  of  self-disciplining 


30.  In  its  Article  III,  the  Constitution only  creates  the  Supreme  Court. All  lower  courts thereunder  are  created by  Congress,  which  can  also  create  tribunal-like administrative  agencies  under  Art.  II,  Sec.  8;  and  appoint judges  directly  or  by  delegation under  Art.  II,  Sec.  2. 

31.  The  Constitution does  not  grant  judges,  not  even  those  of  the  Supreme  Court, the  power  to  determine  themselves what  constitutes  “good  Behaviour”  during which  they  can  “hold their  Offices”.  Yet,  politicians  have  relinquished  that  significant  ‘check and  balance’  to  the  judges by  allowing  them  to  exercise the  power  of  self-disciplining(jur:21§1).

32.  With  the  connivance  of  politicians,  judges abuse  that  power  by  dismissing 99.82%(jur:10-14)  of  complaints  against them  filed  by  parties  to  cases  and  any  other  members  of  the  People,  as  well  as  denying  up  to  100%  of  petitions to  review  those  dismissals(jur:24§§b-d). 

33.  The  relation of  political  protectors-judicial  protégés is  anathema  to  the  objective analysis  of  complaints against  judges  and  the  fair  and  impartial treatment  of  complainants. That  is  why  judges  have  no  inhibitions about  abusing  their  self-disciplining  power  to  arrogate to  themselves  self-exemption  from  liability.

34.  Complainants  have  no  other  source  of  relief.  They  are  left  to  bob  with  their  complained  about  harm  in  the  middle of  the  swamp.

8.  Judges’  power  to  show  contempt  for  We  the  People and  our  representatives


35.  We  the  People, the  masters  in  “government  of,  by,  and  for  the  people”(jur:82fn172),  hired  judges as  their  public servants  to  deliver the  service  of  administering  justice according  to  the  rule  of  law. 

36.  But  judges need  not  serve  the  People  to  stay  established in  office.  Voters neither  elect  nor  reelect  federal judges.  Judges  stay  even  when  they  disserve  the  People.  There  is  no  downside  to  disservice,  for  they  can  neither  be  demoted  nor  have  their  salary  reduced.

37.  To  enjoy  their  lifelong stay  on  the  bench,  judges only  need  to  serve  their  constituency:  each  other.  If  they  stand  together,  nobody can  bring  them  down...unless  their  swamp  is  drained  through exposure,  as  proposed below.

9.  The  power  to  retaliate


38.  Judges’  power  to  retaliate is  not  limited to  declaring  each  of  the  pieces  of  a  president’s or  party’s  legislative agenda  unconstitutional. 

39.  Judges  have  a  panoply of  ways  to  engage  in  chicanery:  They  can:

a.  sign  search and  seizure  warrants broader  than  they  should  be,  narrow  them  or  refuse to  sign  them  altogether;

b.  grant,  deny,  or  impose punitive,  bail;

c.  admit  or  exclude evidence,  evidentiary and  expert  witnesses, and  their  testimony;

d.  uphold  or  overrule  objections and  raise  others on  their  own  motion;

e.  cause  documents’ docket  entry  dates  to  be  moved  forward or  backward;

f.  lose  and  misplace  documents and  make  them  reappear  at  will;

g.  meet  with  some  parties in  the  absence of  other  parties;

h.  grant  or  deny  the  sealing  and  unsealing  of  documents  and  leak,  or  profit  from,  sealed  information;

i.  grant  or  deny  hearings and  leave  to  appeal;

j.  ignore  or  grant  more  or  less  than  the  relief  requested;

k.  enter  judgment consonant  with  or  notwithstanding  the  verdict;

j.  grant  a  reduction  or  increase  in  the  amount of  compensation;  etc.(Lsch:17§C)

40.  But  judges’ power  of  retaliation has  one  important limit:  They  cannot retaliate  simultaneously  against a  large  number of  professional  and  citizen  journalists participating  in  a  concerted  effort to  drain  their  swamp  through investigation  and  exposure, especially  if  the  effort  was  launched  by  the  president to  deliver  on  a  campaign promise.  Such  massive retaliation  would  unmask their  actions  as  coordinated  abuse  of  power  to  conceal their  liability  for,  and  preserve, their  swamp  benefits.

B.  Judges  unaccountability  is the  key  corruptive component  of  the judicial  swamp


41.  Unaccountability  is  the  attribute that  distinguishes  judges individually  as  public officers  and  collectively as  a  class, the  judicial  class, a  privileged  one.  Their  privilege is  at  once  the  source and  the  result of  their  powers, which  they  leverage to  preserve  and  exploit  their  privilege  by  adopting  a  black  robe  first  mentality and  letting  it  guide  their  professional  and  personal  “Behaviour”.

42.  Judges’  privilege is  the  product of  corruptive  components: 

a.  a  sense  of  entitlement to  their  office for  life

b.  the  assurance of  being  held  unaccountable  by  others  and  the  capacity to  assure  themselves their  self-exemption  from  discipline,  never  mind  liability to  others,  which  give  rise  to  a  sense  and  the  reality of  impunity;  and 

c.  the  most  corruptive  of  all  powers: the  power  to  decide  what  is  lawful or  unlawful  and  thereby  make  anything  either right  or  wrong...or simply  go  away. 

43.  People  are  not  merely elevated  to  the  federal  bench. Because  they  are  allowed,  and  manage,  to  do  from  there  whatever they  want  without being  worried  about  its  adverse consequences  regardless  of  the  nature and  quality  of  their  behavior and  performance,  they  are  given  access  to  a  status that  no  person is  entitled  to  receive  or  grab  in  ‘government,  not  of  men  and  women, but  by  the  rule  of  law’(ol:5fn6):  Public  Servants Above  their  Masters –We  the  People-  and  their  Law. 

44.  Conferring a  federal  judgeship amounts  to  issuing a  license  to  engage  in  wrongdoing  for  profit  as  a  member of  an  independent, sovereign,  and  most  powerful  corrupt organization.  Since  P-e  Trump  wants  to  drain  the  Establishment swamp,  he  must  begin  by  draining  the  one  that  dominates  it:  the  judicial swamp.

C.  P-e  Trump’s first  step:  a  press  conference to  call  on  the  public and  the  media  to  expose the  corruptive  judicial powers  and  the  resulting  swamp


45.  P-e  Trump  can  call  a  press  conference(ol2:489¶¶10-11) to  declare  that  the  system of  justice  that  he  accused of  being  rigged in  favor  of  Sec.  Clinton is  actually  rigged against  We  the  People(ol2:  437¶4),  constituting  a  key  portion  of  the  Establishment swamp,  so  that  as  a  prerequisite  to  nominating  J.  Scalia’s successor  and  ushering in  a  fair  and  impartial system,  the  depth  of  its  corruption  must  be  plumbed. He  can  thus become  the  People’s  Champion of  Justice. 

46.  In  that  vein,  P-e  Trump  can:

a.  make an  Emile  Zola-like I accuse!(jur:98§2)  denunciation  of  politicians/judges’  connivance; 

b.  ask  the  public to  submit  their  judicial  complaints(ol:311¶2362¶4)  and  the  decisions of  the  judges in  their  cases(ol:274304) to  his  website for  the  public to  examine  them  in  search of  the  most  persuasive  evidence: commonalities  forming  patterns of  wrongdoing; 

c.  call  on  professional  and  citizen  journalists  to  investigate  the  two  unique national  stories(ol2:440, 480¶¶2-3)  of  President  Obama-Justice Sotomayor  and  Federal Judiciary-NSA. 

1)  Judges  are  required  by  their  own  Code  of  Conduct  to  “avoid  even  the  appearance  of  impropriety”(jur:68fn123a). Therefore,  journalists  only  have  to  show,  rather than  prove,  that  judges  appear to  engage  in  improprieties,  never  mind  criminal conduct,  such  as  concealing  assets to  evade  taxes  and  launder them  of  the  taint  of  unlawful  origin(jur:65fn107a,c).  Such  showing  will  cause  outrage so  intense  in  the  public(ol2:461§G)  as  to  provoke resignations  among  judges(jur:92§d); 

d)  announce nationally  televised  hearings on  judges’  wrongdoing to  be  conducted by  the  Department of  Justice  with  the  assistance of  the  FBI  to  expose the  corruption’s  nature, extent,  and  gravity, and  determine  the  scope  of  the  needed reform(jur:158§6-7

1)  This  is  as  unrealistic  and  improbable  as  other  millenial impossibles  were  that  have  become everyday  realities,  e.g.:

 (a)  public  education for  the  boys  of  the  poor,  even  their  daughters; 

 (b)  the  extension of  voting  to  unlanded  men  and  even  women; 

 (c)  the  abolition of  slavery; 

 (d)  labor  unions and  the  right  to  strike; 

 (e)  the  right  to  paid  holidays; 

 (f)  limitations  on  the  workweek; 

 (g)  public  assistance; 

 (h)  maternity  leave; 

 (i)  the  rights of  the  disabled; 

 (j)  abortion  rights; 

 (k)  gay  marriage; 

 (l)  universal  health care; 

etc.(jur:xlv§G)

e)  demand that  Congress  convene the  constitutional  convention that  34  states have  formally  called, thus  satisfying  the  constitutional  requirement of  Article  V  for  amending the  Constitution,  and  advocate  the  adoption  of  term-limits  for  judges  and  the  establishment of  citizen  boards of  judicial  accountability  and  liability(jur:160§8);

f)  encourage top  universities  to  join  forces with  the  national media  and  journalism schools,  advocates  of  honest  judiciaries, and  groups  of  victims  of  wrongdoing  judges to: 

1)  organize a  national  conference on  judges’  unaccountability  and  riskless  wrongdoing (jur:97§1),  and  statistical, linguistic,  and  literary auditing  techniques(jur:131§b); 

2)  publish print  and/or  digital journals  on  judicial unaccountability  and  wrongdoing(jur:97§1)  with  articles  for  scholarly  and  general  audiences;

3)  devise and  disseminate  templates for  the  public to  report  judicial wrongdoing  as  one  of  the  sources  together with  other  techniques(ol:42,  60)  for  compiling the  Annual  Report on  Judicial  Unaccountability  and  Wrongdoing  in  America(jur:126§3);

4)  create an  institute(jur:130§5)  of  judicial accountability  and  reform advocacy.

D.  Action  that  you  can  take  to  ensure  that  the  judicial swamp  is  drained


47.  You  too  can  contribute to  draining  the  swamp  by  calling  on  P-e  Trump, the  anti-Trump  movement, the  Sen.  Sanders’ revolution,  and  local  and  national media  to  demand that  the  judicial swamp  be  drained. 

48.  To  that  end,  you  can  share  and  post  this  article in  its  entirety as  widely  as  possible  (if  you  are  a  commercial publisher,  first  ask  Dr.  Cordero for  permission),  and  forward  it  to  the  following  bloc  of  email  addresses:


49.  I  offer  to  make  a  presentation of  this  article in  person  or  by  video  conference  upon  request.  Contact me  through  this  bloc  of  email  addresses:



Visit  the  website at,  and  subscribe to  its  series of  letters  and  articles  thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org>  +  New  or  Users  >Add New

Dare  trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)...and you  may  enter  it.

NOTE:  Given  the  interference with  Dr.  Cordero’s email  and  e-cloud storage  accounts  described at  *  >ggl:1  et  seq.,  when  emailing  him,  copy  the  above  bloc  of  his  email  addresses and  paste  it  in  the  To:  line  of  your  email  so  as  to  enhance  the  chances  of  your  email  reaching  him  at  least  at  one  of  those  addresses.
******************************

Sharon4USearch